niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: In reality people often do strange or unusual things when they suffer a traumatic, and in Mike's case, a mortal injury. Their mind continues to work as it does and they realize that they need to DO something. However, after a short period of time, their injury overcomes their adrenaline rush and they are forced to halt whatever it is that they are doing. In Mike's case, being a trained professional, he would have tried to flee since he knew that he was wounded and that he was unable to defend himself. It seemed though that his body wouldn't allow him to go much further than it did and he simply sat down a short distance from the car where he'd been shot. When this occurred, he probably realized that his wound was a mortal one and he simply resigned himself to his fate. There's also the reality which may have occurred to Mike that there was no place for him to go. Even if Walt had called an ambulance and they arrived before he bled to death, he would have been arrested and gone on trial for at least the distribution of the money to his criminal conspirators if not been tried along with them for the events which occurred during the Fring drug organization. Sitting by a river and dying there may have been a far more pleasant option for him than spending the remainder of his adult life in prison.  <sep>  Q: Why did Mike get out of the car after being shot? A: In reality people often do strange or unusual things when they suffer a traumatic, and in Mike's case, a mortal injury. Their mind continues to work as it does and they realize that they  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wouldnt he want to conserve his energy?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In reality people often do strange or unusual things when they suffer a traumatic, and in Mike's case, a mortal injury. Their mind continues to work as it does and they realize that they need to DO something. However, after a short period of time, their injury overcomes their adrenaline rush and they are forced to halt whatever it is that they are doing. In Mike's case, being a trained professional, he would have tried to flee since he knew that he was wounded and that he was unable to defend himself. It seemed though that his body wouldn't allow him to go much further than it did and he simply sat down a short distance from the car where he'd been shot. When this occurred, he probably realized that his wound was a mortal one and he simply resigned himself to his fate. There's also the reality which may have occurred to Mike that there was no place for him to go. Even if Walt had called an ambulance and they arrived before he bled to death, he would have been arrested and gone on trial for at least the distribution of the money to his criminal conspirators if not been tried along with them for the events which occurred during the Fring drug organization. Sitting by a river and dying there may have been a far more pleasant option for him than spending the remainder of his adult life in prison.  <sep>  Q: Why did Mike get out of the car after being shot? A: In reality people often do strange or unusual things when they suffer a traumatic, and in Mike's case, a mortal injury. Their mind continues to work as it does and they realize that they  Q: Wouldnt he want to conserve his energy? A: In Mike's case, being a trained professional, he would have tried to flee since he knew that he was wounded and that he was unable to defend himself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about the river drew him in his final moments
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This could be an audio clip from another Bad Place, with classic torture, which Janet can play them. And technically, Neighbourhood 12358W is different from the Bad Place, and since Janet never directly told anyone that they're in the good place, she isn't lying, just hiding information as Michael told her to.  <sep>  Q: I'm sorry, I meant "play", not "plan". She plays The Good place in A Bad place, why?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This could be an audio clip from another Bad Place, with classic torture, which Janet can play them. And technically, Neighbourhood 12358W is different from the Bad Place, and since Janet never directly told anyone that they're in the good place, she isn't lying, just hiding information as Michael told her to.  <sep>  Q: Why does Janet plan Bad Place in The Good Place
Output: No
CONTEXT: The 2007 behind the scenes special 77 Secrets of The Fairly Odd Parents Revealed! explicitly states that Tiberius is a reference to Kirk. There are a number of Star Trek references in the show too. His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy".  <sep>  Q: Is Timmy Turner's middle name a reference to Star Trek?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The 2007 behind the scenes special 77 Secrets of The Fairly Odd Parents Revealed! explicitly states that Tiberius is a reference to Kirk. There are a number of Star Trek references in the show too. His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy".  <sep>  Q: Is Timmy Turner's middle name a reference to Star Trek? A: Tiberius is a reference to Kirk  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the writer make that connection?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The 2007 behind the scenes special 77 Secrets of The Fairly Odd Parents Revealed! explicitly states that Tiberius is a reference to Kirk. There are a number of Star Trek references in the show too. His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy".  <sep>  Q: Is Timmy Turner's middle name a reference to Star Trek? A: Tiberius is a reference to Kirk  Q: Why did the writer make that connection? A: There are a number of Star Trek references in the show  Q: What are some other ones? A: His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did The Fairly Oddparnets start?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The 2007 behind the scenes special 77 Secrets of The Fairly Odd Parents Revealed! explicitly states that Tiberius is a reference to Kirk. There are a number of Star Trek references in the show too. His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy".  <sep>  Q: Is Timmy Turner's middle name a reference to Star Trek? A: Tiberius is a reference to Kirk  Q: Why did the writer make that connection? A: There are a number of Star Trek references in the show  Q: What are some other ones? A: His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy  Q: When did The Fairly Oddparnets start? A: 2007  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHen was Stark Trek?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It is a lot clearer in the book. They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families. He did start turning his opinion around when Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch and, of all people, Peeta, too! In the book, Katniss then mentioned an uprising happening in District 8, which caused Gale to see an opportunity to bring down the Capitol, without any need to have Peeta along for a desperate escape that may easily fail. Also, it was winter, so finding food on the way would have been quite a challenge, too. Actually, the whole thing may have played out differently if only it had been spring.  <sep>  Q: Why did Katniss and Gale not run away when they had the chance?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is a lot clearer in the book. They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families. He did start turning his opinion around when Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch and, of all people, Peeta, too! In the book, Katniss then mentioned an uprising happening in District 8, which caused Gale to see an opportunity to bring down the Capitol, without any need to have Peeta along for a desperate escape that may easily fail. Also, it was winter, so finding food on the way would have been quite a challenge, too. Actually, the whole thing may have played out differently if only it had been spring.  <sep>  Q: Why did Katniss and Gale not run away when they had the chance? A: They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did katniss want to take?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is a lot clearer in the book. They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families. He did start turning his opinion around when Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch and, of all people, Peeta, too! In the book, Katniss then mentioned an uprising happening in District 8, which caused Gale to see an opportunity to bring down the Capitol, without any need to have Peeta along for a desperate escape that may easily fail. Also, it was winter, so finding food on the way would have been quite a challenge, too. Actually, the whole thing may have played out differently if only it had been spring.  <sep>  Q: Why did Katniss and Gale not run away when they had the chance? A: They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families  Q: Who did katniss want to take? A: Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she want to take haymitch?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is a lot clearer in the book. They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families. He did start turning his opinion around when Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch and, of all people, Peeta, too! In the book, Katniss then mentioned an uprising happening in District 8, which caused Gale to see an opportunity to bring down the Capitol, without any need to have Peeta along for a desperate escape that may easily fail. Also, it was winter, so finding food on the way would have been quite a challenge, too. Actually, the whole thing may have played out differently if only it had been spring.  <sep>  Q: Why did Katniss and Gale not run away when they had the chance? A: They where both quite willing to run, but Gale expected only Katniss, himself and their families  Q: Who did katniss want to take? A: Katniss mentioned she's taking Haymitch  Q: Why did she want to take haymitch? A: it was winter, so finding food on the way would have been quite a challenge  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the winter stop them from leaving?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out.  <sep>  Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was she in a trance like state?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out.  <sep>  Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape  Q: Why was she in a trance like state? A: Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did it maybe have some sort of unnatural attraction emerging from the stone itself?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out.  <sep>  Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape  Q: Why was she in a trance like state? A: Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is  Q: Did it maybe have some sort of unnatural attraction emerging from the stone itself? A: her desire to be free wins out  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, it seems she had been suppressed all the time and the Collector isn't particularly nice to his servants?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out.  <sep>  Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape  Q: Why was she in a trance like state? A: Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did she seem to utter I'm not a slave anymore?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out.  <sep>  Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape  Q: Why was she in a trance like state? A: Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is  Q: Did it maybe have some sort of unnatural attraction emerging from the stone itself? A: her desire to be free wins out  Q: So, it seems she had been suppressed all the time and the Collector isn't particularly nice to his servants? A: earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What type of work would he require of her?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens in the other version?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  Q: What happens in the other version? A: On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you give me any other details that I might find interesting?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  Q: What happens in the other version? A: On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any other differences that you can highlight?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  Q: What happens in the other version? A: On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it true that the two endings to the films are shot in different locations?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  Q: What happens in the other version? A: On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score  Q: Can you give me any other details that I might find interesting? A: This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was this the only reason for the change?
Output: No
CONTEXT: This was explained in the prequel novel Catalyst. Basically, Erso was always a pacifist and never wanted his work to be used to create weapons. Krennic tricked him into working for the Empire on his research by making Erso believe that the work was being used in energy generation and that in other labs other teams were working to contain the energy that Erso was coaxing from the Kyber crystals. When Erso discovered that in actuality, Krennic was developing methods to release the energy as a focused beam weapon, Erso, his wife and daughter fled Coruscant and hid on a backwater world.  <sep>  Q: Why did Galen Erso abandon the Empire?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This was explained in the prequel novel Catalyst. Basically, Erso was always a pacifist and never wanted his work to be used to create weapons. Krennic tricked him into working for the Empire on his research by making Erso believe that the work was being used in energy generation and that in other labs other teams were working to contain the energy that Erso was coaxing from the Kyber crystals. When Erso discovered that in actuality, Krennic was developing methods to release the energy as a focused beam weapon, Erso, his wife and daughter fled Coruscant and hid on a backwater world.  <sep>  Q: Why did Galen Erso abandon the Empire? A: This was explained in the prequel novel Catalyst  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Based on the previous experience, Krennic intended to manipulate Erso into rejoining the empire to work on Death Star
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This was explained in the prequel novel Catalyst. Basically, Erso was always a pacifist and never wanted his work to be used to create weapons. Krennic tricked him into working for the Empire on his research by making Erso believe that the work was being used in energy generation and that in other labs other teams were working to contain the energy that Erso was coaxing from the Kyber crystals. When Erso discovered that in actuality, Krennic was developing methods to release the energy as a focused beam weapon, Erso, his wife and daughter fled Coruscant and hid on a backwater world.  <sep>  Q: Why did Galen Erso abandon the Empire? A: This was explained in the prequel novel Catalyst  Q: Based on the previous experience, Krennic intended to manipulate Erso into rejoining the empire to work on Death Star A: Basically, Erso was always a pacifist and never wanted his work to be used to create weapons  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what led Galen Esro to leave the Empire?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon? A: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Lucifer hire Abbadon in the first place?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon? A: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer  Q: Why did Lucifer hire Abbadon in the first place? A: Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened in the 2000s?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon? A: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer  Q: Why did Lucifer hire Abbadon in the first place? A: Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s  Q: What happened in the 2000s? A: Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the series or Abbadon in general?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon? A: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer  Q: Why did Lucifer hire Abbadon in the first place? A: Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s  Q: What happened in the 2000s? A: Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the significance of the seals and what happens if they are unblocked?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer, since Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s, when Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals. So in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters".  <sep>  Q: Who hired Abaddon? A: Abaddon was a Knight Of Hell, thus a "Hired Gun" for Lucifer  Q: Why did Lucifer hire Abbadon in the first place? A: Lucifer was locked in "the Cage" in Hell, unable to walk the earth until the 2000s  Q: What happened in the 2000s? A: Sam was coerced into unlocking the seals  Q: What else can you tell me about the series or Abbadon in general? A: in 1958 Abaddon was working for Lucifer and killed all the "Men of Letters  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was Lucifer's plan?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts. As we have seen that demon plays with Karras' emotions related to his mother too. The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all.  <sep>  Q: Why does the demon that possesses Regan react to the “fake” holy water?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts. As we have seen that demon plays with Karras' emotions related to his mother too. The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all.  <sep>  Q: Why does the demon that possesses Regan react to the “fake” holy water? A: The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So why did he do it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts. As we have seen that demon plays with Karras' emotions related to his mother too. The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all.  <sep>  Q: Why does the demon that possesses Regan react to the “fake” holy water? A: The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all  Q: So why did he do it? A: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHo sprinkled the fake holy water?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts. As we have seen that demon plays with Karras' emotions related to his mother too. The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all.  <sep>  Q: Why does the demon that possesses Regan react to the “fake” holy water? A: The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all  Q: So why did he do it? A: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long did the demon possess regan?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts. As we have seen that demon plays with Karras' emotions related to his mother too. The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all.  <sep>  Q: Why does the demon that possesses Regan react to the “fake” holy water? A: The demon reads on mind and emotions so it's not possible that he got fooled by tap water at all  Q: So why did he do it? A: It may be the case that the demon is cunning and wanted to make a doubt in the mind of Karras, already having a lack of faith in demons and ghosts  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHen did the demon leave>
Output: No
CONTEXT: "She'll find out eventually" isn't good enough. Earth is in trouble right now. Captain Marvel needs to find out right now. It's unclear how much time has passed between the snap and her arrival back on Earth in Captain Marvel's post-credits scene, but she didn't get there immediately, so the sooner she found out, the sooner she would arrive. As for the 50% chance, I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening. He doesn't appear in Infinity War until the post-credits scene, and IIRC, there's no indication he knew about Thanos or his plan to wipe out half the universe. All he knew was that, across the planet, people had started disintegrating. He had no way of knowing that Captain Marvel herself could potentially have been affected.  <sep>  Q: Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: "She'll find out eventually" isn't good enough. Earth is in trouble right now. Captain Marvel needs to find out right now. It's unclear how much time has passed between the snap and her arrival back on Earth in Captain Marvel's post-credits scene, but she didn't get there immediately, so the sooner she found out, the sooner she would arrive. As for the 50% chance, I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening. He doesn't appear in Infinity War until the post-credits scene, and IIRC, there's no indication he knew about Thanos or his plan to wipe out half the universe. All he knew was that, across the planet, people had started disintegrating. He had no way of knowing that Captain Marvel herself could potentially have been affected.  <sep>  Q: Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary? A: I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Captain Marvel care about Earthlings?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: "She'll find out eventually" isn't good enough. Earth is in trouble right now. Captain Marvel needs to find out right now. It's unclear how much time has passed between the snap and her arrival back on Earth in Captain Marvel's post-credits scene, but she didn't get there immediately, so the sooner she found out, the sooner she would arrive. As for the 50% chance, I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening. He doesn't appear in Infinity War until the post-credits scene, and IIRC, there's no indication he knew about Thanos or his plan to wipe out half the universe. All he knew was that, across the planet, people had started disintegrating. He had no way of knowing that Captain Marvel herself could potentially have been affected.  <sep>  Q: Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary? A: I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening  Q: Did Captain Marvel care about Earthlings? A: It's unclear how much time has passed between the snap and her arrival back on Earth in Captain Marvel's post-credits scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Nick Fury really need to send a pager message to Captain Marvel after Thanos' snap?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes. Clearly the protection is deliberately crude and underlines the primitive and brutal conditions in that setting in a way that more refined protection might not. You could also speculate that the head cages reflect the appearance of the barred cells and by placing them on the guard's heads it is a metaphor for the idea that the inmates are prisoners of their own madness. Equally by obscuring the guards faces with a crude and claustrophobic cage they are somewhat dehumanised and more like automata than medical staff. Indeed the whole visual style of the film uses a lot of elements which evoke stylized dreamlike of hallucinogenic states which confuse individual sense of identity and many of the characters are driven by some sort of obsession and it is implied that Dr Seward is as much a prisoner of his work as the peopel he treats (or at least studies).  <sep>  Q: Why are the asylum guards wearing cages on their heads?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes. Clearly the protection is deliberately crude and underlines the primitive and brutal conditions in that setting in a way that more refined protection might not. You could also speculate that the head cages reflect the appearance of the barred cells and by placing them on the guard's heads it is a metaphor for the idea that the inmates are prisoners of their own madness. Equally by obscuring the guards faces with a crude and claustrophobic cage they are somewhat dehumanised and more like automata than medical staff. Indeed the whole visual style of the film uses a lot of elements which evoke stylized dreamlike of hallucinogenic states which confuse individual sense of identity and many of the characters are driven by some sort of obsession and it is implied that Dr Seward is as much a prisoner of his work as the peopel he treats (or at least studies).  <sep>  Q: Why are the asylum guards wearing cages on their heads? A: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: was there any other types of protection?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes. Clearly the protection is deliberately crude and underlines the primitive and brutal conditions in that setting in a way that more refined protection might not. You could also speculate that the head cages reflect the appearance of the barred cells and by placing them on the guard's heads it is a metaphor for the idea that the inmates are prisoners of their own madness. Equally by obscuring the guards faces with a crude and claustrophobic cage they are somewhat dehumanised and more like automata than medical staff. Indeed the whole visual style of the film uses a lot of elements which evoke stylized dreamlike of hallucinogenic states which confuse individual sense of identity and many of the characters are driven by some sort of obsession and it is implied that Dr Seward is as much a prisoner of his work as the peopel he treats (or at least studies).  <sep>  Q: Why are the asylum guards wearing cages on their heads? A: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did it effect dracula at al?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes. Clearly the protection is deliberately crude and underlines the primitive and brutal conditions in that setting in a way that more refined protection might not. You could also speculate that the head cages reflect the appearance of the barred cells and by placing them on the guard's heads it is a metaphor for the idea that the inmates are prisoners of their own madness. Equally by obscuring the guards faces with a crude and claustrophobic cage they are somewhat dehumanised and more like automata than medical staff. Indeed the whole visual style of the film uses a lot of elements which evoke stylized dreamlike of hallucinogenic states which confuse individual sense of identity and many of the characters are driven by some sort of obsession and it is implied that Dr Seward is as much a prisoner of his work as the peopel he treats (or at least studies).  <sep>  Q: Why are the asylum guards wearing cages on their heads? A: The implication is that the inmates are potentially violent and presumably the biggest danger from unarmed but psychotic patients is biting/scratching/gouging at the face and eyes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What asylum was this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes they are all connected. Despite Hank's outward appearance of nonchalance, the incident with Tuco shook him a lot. It was probably Hank's first really violent fire fight and that left him suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder. He becomes more fearful and more fearful of further violence. Tuco's grill was a grisly reminder of all the fear he went through, which was something he didn't want to relive anymore. But fearful for his reputation as a tough cop, he outwardly accepts the souvenir only to dispose of it in secret later on. Hank's secret reluctance to take up the position in the Mexican border is also another indication of this.  <sep>  Q: Why does Hank throw Tuco's 'grill' into the river?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you say too much precision?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  Q: Why do you say too much precision? A: Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why in the world would Bojack say he weighs 1200 pounds?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  Q: Why do you say too much precision? A: Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition  Q: Why in the world would Bojack say he weighs 1200 pounds? A: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, is he just being sarcastic because he was asked if he was drunk?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  Q: Why do you say too much precision? A: Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition  Q: Why in the world would Bojack say he weighs 1200 pounds? A: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene  Q: So, is he just being sarcastic because he was asked if he was drunk? A: hat's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, do you think there are indications that characters are actually non-morphic in nature?
Output: No
CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  Q: Why do you say too much precision? A: Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition  Q: Why in the world would Bojack say he weighs 1200 pounds? A: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene  Q: So, is he just being sarcastic because he was asked if he was drunk? A: hat's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think he could have possibly weighed 1200 pounds?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who was Parry woken up by?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  Q: Who was Parry woken up by? A: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did his girlfriend die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the Name of this movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who are the main actors?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  Q: Who was Parry woken up by? A: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack  Q: Did his girlfriend die? A: he was talking about his dead wife  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did anyone else die in the episode?
Output: No
CONTEXT: To get rid of Jesse. It's my speculation, I think Gus is not able to kill Jesse directly because of Walt. But he can create a situation where he can get killed on his own. So killing Tomas is a good way to make Jesse create trouble for his own self. It was Walt's involvement which saved Jesse in the end otherwise Jesse might died that day.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tomas have to die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To get rid of Jesse. It's my speculation, I think Gus is not able to kill Jesse directly because of Walt. But he can create a situation where he can get killed on his own. So killing Tomas is a good way to make Jesse create trouble for his own self. It was Walt's involvement which saved Jesse in the end otherwise Jesse might died that day.  <sep>  Q: Why did Tomas have to die? A: To get rid of Jesse  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was his method successful?
Output: Yes